In July 2017, the Fare Evasion Decriminalization Act was introduced before the DC Council with the support of 9 out of 13 councilmembers. This legislation would decriminalize fare evasion on public transportation in the District.

In recent weeks, the fare evasion issue has drawn renewed attention, following the brutal arrest of a young mother and the start of Metro’s new policy banning negative balances. Here’s what’s in the fare evasion decriminalization bill, and what Metro and activists who support the bill are saying.

Metro is cracking down on fare evasion; the decriminalization act would lower the maximum penalty to $100

Currently, under DC’s Act to Regulate Public Conduct on Public Passenger Vehicles, fare evasion is “punishable by a fine of not more than $300, by imprisonment for not more than 10 days, or both.” The Fare Evasion Decriminalization Act would change that law by removing the criminal penalty and reducing the fine to a maximum of $100. Because this is DC legislation, it would only apply to fare evasion in DC, and would not alter the fare evasion policies in Virginia or Maryland.

At the start of 2017, amid concerns that fare evasion resulted in a $25 million revenue loss annually, Metro began stricter enforcement of fare evasion violations. From January to June 2017, the number of tickets issued for fare evasion more than doubled from the same period in 2016. There were nearly 6,000 citations, 8 percent of which resulted in arrest.

Metro argued that stricter enforcement of fare evasion laws would increase safety, citing crime data showing that 23 percent of attacks on bus operators by riders were tied to disputes over fares. Metro Transit Police Chief Ron Pavlik cited arrests of fare evaders with open warrants as evidence that the policy benefits public safety.

Last year, Metro General Manager Paul Wiedefeld defended the fare evasion crackdown, calling it a “fairness issue, across the entire community.” But some see the current fare evasion policy as anything but fair. The Save Our System Coalition, which is backed by the transit union-funded activist group Americans for Transit, is supporting the Fare Evasion Decriminalization Act. Save Our System disputed WMATA’s characterization of fare evasion arrests, arguing that these policies disproportionately target low-income people of color.

Activists and DC councilmembers say the current policy has a disproportionate racial impact

At the September 28, 2017 WMATA public board meeting, Save Our System members said that they had witnessed Metro Transit Police using excessive use of force against young people of color. One rider said that she had witnessed several officers at the Gallery Place station pinning a young black man’s hands behind his back and pepper spraying him several times in the face, while another organizer said that she had witnessed officers “threatening to hit kids with their batons and to arrest kids because they were not moving down the stairs at the pace officers would have liked.”

Some DC councilmembers agree that disproportionate fare evasion enforcement against people of color is common. Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen, who was one of the eight councilmembers who introduced the decriminalization bill, admitted to being a repeat offender. He pointed out that people who look like him — white and wearing suits — are not targeted for fare evasion violations. Ward 8 Councilmember Trayon White, who also introduced the bill, said that people arrested for fare evasion tend to be young people from economically disadvantaged communities, and that Ward 8 residents would be better served by Metro Transit Police focusing on increasing safety rather than carrying out arrests for minor offenses like fare evasion.

The threat of arrest is not the only way that Metro’s current fare evasion policy has a disproportionate impact on people of color. The current fare evasion fine of up to $300 is excessive for those already struggling to pay the base fare to go to work or to the grocery store. While the average net worth of a white household in the region is $284,000, that number is only $3,500 for the average black household.

Lowering the fine to $100 would better strike a balance between discouraging fare evasion and ensuring that those struggling to make ends meet will not fall further into poverty as a result of fare evasion policies. Centuries of racist and discriminatory policies have contributed to the racial wealth gap, and it’s only fair that we address the racial impacts of existing policies.

Despite more recent scrutiny, there has yet to be a vote on the decriminalization bill

Metro Transit Police fare evasion enforcement tactics have recently drawn even more scrutiny, following the arrest of a 20-year-old woman at a bus stop off of Alabama Ave Southeast earlier this month. The woman, a student at Ballou STAY High School, had boarded the W4 bus with her 1-year-old son and 2-year-old daughter. She had a DC One card which allowed her to ride for free, but it was not with her on the day of the arrest.

She suffered 12 stitches in her knee, a busted face including injuries around her mouth and four broken teeth, and a fractured knee after a Metro Transit Police officer slammed her face to the ground and arrested her for fare evasion and resisting arrest. The case has been cited by Save Our System as an example of why Metro fare evasion policies need to be reformed.

Metro’s decision to eliminate negative balances last month has also led to a renewed sense of urgency among activists regarding the fare evasion decriminalization bill. On January 8, the day the policy took effect, No Justice No Pride and Black Lives Matter DC, which are members of the Save Our System Coalition, handed out SmarTrip cards at the Anacostia station. These groups argued that eliminating negative fare balances while fare boxes only accept cash would lead to more disputes between riders and law enforcement, threatening the safety of low-income people of color. Expect the impacts of the new no negative balance policy to play a role in the fare decriminalization debate.

So far, the fare evasion decriminalization bill has yet to receive a vote, though a public hearing was held on October 19, 2017. With renewed attention to the issue and campaign season in full swing, that may soon change.

The Washington region ranks high for accessibility, but that doesn't mean there aren’t a lot of gaps for people with disabilities. DC is generally well served by transit, and every Metro station is designed to be accessible through escalators and elevators. (In comparison, only 50 of 270 stations in the London Underground and a mere nine of 303 stations in Paris are wheelchair-accessible.) However, despite appearances, Metro rail, bus, and paratransit services frequently fall short for riders who have disabilities.

“The [Americans with Disabilities Act] calls transportation the “lynchpin” of community,” said Heidi Case, a disability advocate with the DC chapter of ADAPT. “If you live in your community it’s not enough that you can’t get anywhere. It leaves you isolated that you can’t get to the doctor or the grocery store or to vote. Lots of people also use transit to get to advocacy meetings.”

In the United States, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects citizens with disabilities against discrimination. Ensuring everyone can access public transit can be challenging, and much more needs to be done to make local rail and bus systems truly accessible.

Metrorail is accessible — sort of

Metrorail is not accessible all of the time, and one serious issue lies within the trains themselves. In 2016, a visually-impaired Metro rider named David Kosub fell between the railcars at Grosvenor Station. He intended to board the train, but stepped between the railcars instead of through a door. The rubber flap barriers that Metro installed between the railcars weren’t wide enough, leaving a gap where a person could fall through. Thankfully, Kosub was able to pull himself off of the tracks.

The incident highlighted a serious safety issue for Metro’s new 7000-series cars. At the time, WAMU reported that any fixes would likely come in the beginning of 2018. There is still no word on how soon Metro’s 7000-series trains will be fixed, despite efforts from Kosub and other activists. As of January, the cars I've seen still haven't been updated.

This “solution” is convoluted and makes what could be a long commute even longer. It also puts the burden on the rider to ensure their escalator or elevator is working, and plan ahead to take additional stops or stop at a different station. All this can be difficult and time-consuming, particularly with the longer headways and rush hour congestion. Any plans made in advance could be sidelined by Metro delays.

"I know a few people who have been asking Metro for years to simply have whiteboards or signs with pertinent information to communicate with Deaf people at stations," says Sean Maiwald, an GGWash edit board member who is Deaf. "A good friend's mother advocated for Metro to have some kind of visual indicator after she was left in a Metro car after everyone evacuated due to a verbal announcement. That's why you'll sometimes see the lights on the train flicker when it stops in a tunnel."

Originally, when the trains came to a stop somewhere besides the platforms, the lights would flicker so the person would know in case there was an evacuation. However, WMATA hasn't done a good job of clarifying what the flickering is for, nor when and where to use it. In practice, the flickering signal is used at the conductor's discretion.

Metrobus has accessibility problems too

The ADA requires all new buses to be accessible, and overall, the region’s bus systems are wheelchair and scooter-friendly. Buses can “kneel” to help people board more easily, and many have lifts that raise wheelchairs to roll onto buses. However, sometimes inaccessible stops prevent people from getting to the bus in the first place.

You may recall a Silver Spring bus stop being voted the “Sorriest bus stop in America” in 2016. Unfortunately, it’s not alone. Across the region, more than half of Metrobus stops are considered inaccessible, according to a 2014 WMATA study.

Recently, I was in Springfield and saw several people standing at a Fairfax Connector bus stop, located at the side of the road without a sidewalk. There was also no curb cut or room for a wheelchair, let alone a bus shelter or anything to protect riders from traffic. This is a bad bus stop — those who are fully abled can still access it, but those in wheelchairs can’t get to it at all.

Inaccessible bus stops aren’t just a Metro matter, however. Many of these stops are also serviced by other city or county bus services, and all jurisdictions share responsibility for making their services accessible. Many streets in our region also lack clearly marked crosswalks and sidewalks are too narrow or poorly maintained, making it difficult for those in wheelchairs or scooters from using them easily.

The same 2014 study points out bad bus stops also make disabled riders more dependent on paratransit services, which are more costly to Metro and often less desirable to users.

MetroAccess helps, but paratransit services have problems too

Paratransit services like MetroAccess operate small buses that usually pick up and drop off riders within a quarter mile of their destination. Riders are usually people can’t ride public transit due to their disability. Metro also has Abilities-Ride, which is a taxi-like service allowing Maryland residents to call for rides on demand, and TransportDC, which operates in the District. Arlington County has STAR (Specialized Transit for Arlington Residents) and Alexandria City has DOT, both of which offer paratransit rides throughout the region.

While they provide an invaluable service, paratransit providers have come under scrutiny for being complicated, confusing, and unreliable. Residents have reported being left behind, and there was an especially egregious case of an autistic man left onboard a MetroAccess van for five hours as the driver made stops throughout DC.

Another problem is that a disproportionate number of disabled people live outside of the District in areas ill-served by transit. These paratransit services help, but aren’t always available in all areas and on all days, leaving gaps in service.

Overall, paratransit services are useful for many residents who either can’t navigate the Metro system at all or have specialized transit needs. However, it’s worth noting that they aren’t the first choice for everyone. Some riders prefer Metrorail or bus but can’t access those services in part because of the reasons outlined above. Finally, due to their cost, paratransit services are at risk of budget and service cuts — which would make the system even less user-friendly.

What can be done?

"Accessibility often means different things to different people which often makes it complicated, but that shouldn't stop groups like Metro from striving to make everything fully accessible," Edit Board member Maiwald says. "Also, keep in mind that the ADA is often seen as the standard by agencies, but to a lot of disabled people, the ADA isn't anywhere near sufficient — meaning it should be considered a floor, not a ceiling."

It’s easy to forget that a transit system, like other facets of our community, is not just about safe transportation. A good system should include easy-to-read signs, wayfinding tools (like compass roses), clear instructions, and enough language translation to help riders get to their destination. It also must have employees who are trained to help passengers navigate the system, including disabled tourists who may need specialized information.

Bus stops need to be moved or modified so they are accessible and wheelchair-friendly. Riders who want to encourage Metro to change a bus stop can complete this Bus Stop Accessibility Problems form. Also, the form itself can be improved — it asks for a lot of information riders may not be able to provide.

The Metro board recently approved refunds for Metrorail customers whose commutes were late by 15 minutes, and advocates say they’d like to see something similar for buses. Many disabled people rely on the bus system for its ease of use and lower cost. When buses are late, it can make commuting with disabilities even tougher. ADAPT member Heidi Case said that a plan like this could help “incentivize loyalty.”

“Lots of people don’t want to ride rail. Some of it is economic, some of them don’t like going underground. [There are] a lot of barriers, and Metro should better appreciate and show through service,” Case said.

Metro must maintain current safety measures, namely replacing the barriers between the 7000-series train cars, repairing broken platform tiles, replacing non-working lights, and repainting any bright or contrasting stripes that are supposed to help riders see the edge of the platform or the ends of the train cars. Metro can also implement long-term solutions like making sure that all intercoms work well and that all train conductors are announcing stations clearly. Better station lighting, which could be coming soon, would help alleviate some safety issues.

Just as the Deaf community would benefit from better signage, visually impaired riders would benefit from better station announcements. Currently, Metrorail arrival information is displayed on PIDs, but there are no station announcements. Visually impaired riders often use sound as a guide, such as listening for train doors to open. Third party apps that announce station times are available, but Metro should look into making clear audible announcements on a regular basis, particularly when it comes to delays or emergencies that may affect travel.

Finally, adopting universal design principles would greatly help with accessibility. Universal design principles help everyone without the need for any special accommodations for those who are disabled. For example, when stores have doors that automatically open and entrances are at ground level so ramps are not necessary, these help people who have a variety of abilities, as well as people with strollers. Designing with people with disabilities in mind is simply good design, and helps make our public spaces truly public.

Top image: A wheelchair user in Union Station. Image by Jordan Barab used with permission.

]]>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:00:00 +0000Joanne Tang (Editorial Board)DC needs to pick up the pace if it wants more people on bikes and buseshttps://ggwash.org/view/66602/dc-needs-to-pick-up-the-pace-if-it-wants-more-people-on-bikes-and-buses
https://ggwash.org/view/66602/dc-needs-to-pick-up-the-pace-if-it-wants-more-people-on-bikes-and-buses

Washington, DC needs to improve its planning to build bus and bike lanes faster. The benefits of bus and bike lanes are realized only when the network of bus and bike lanes is complete.

The city already has the policies and laws on the books to make this happen. Unfortunately, the current planning process is too prone to delays. Those delays are from inefficiency in project planning and the politicization of individual bus and bike lanes. To get the work done faster, the city’s planning and execution has to improve.

DC already has the framework it needs to reshape its transportation system

Complete Streets, MoveDC, and Vision Zero are the cornerstones of Washington, DC’s goal to reduce congestion and improve safety. With these policies, the city has the legal and policy framework to reshape the city’s transportation system:

DC’s Complete Streets Policy ensures that planning efforts for any street project in the District consider everybody, including pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers.

MoveDC’s efforts started in 2013 and build off the work of 2010’s Complete Streets Policy. MoveDC is the plan developed by DDOT to help guide the future of transportation in DC Focused on all aspects of mobility, the plan emphasizes two goals in particular: First, to have at least 75 percent of trips taken by means other than driving alone; and second, to have a major transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvement on each major street in the city.

Finally, Vision Zero, passed in 2016 is the city’s effort to get serious about traffic safety and to eliminate traffic deaths in the city by the year 2024.

All three of these policies are an important step that recognizes the need for Washington to build on its successes in cycling and transit usage. Together they create a vision of transportation in DC that is safe and able to move people quickly despite heavy congestion. With that goal in mind DDOT is empowered to be bold about its plans for city streets.

The beauty of bus and bike lanes is that they leverage existing infrastructure and allocate space more efficiently, moving more people in the same amount of road space. That can help the city meet its goals of moving more people in fewer cars while keeping costs down. No individual bus or bike lane will transform the city entirely, but the cumulative effect of a number of projects can improve the city’s transportation landscape for little cost.

But the city needs to paint its bus and bike lanes faster to have any hope of meeting its ambitious but reachable goals for increased cycling and public transportation usage. To speed up and expand the city’s bus and bike lane network, DC needs to:

Treat bus and bike lanes as part of routine maintenance, not new capital projects

Proactively address residents’ traffic and parking concerns when new projects are announced

1. Treat bus lanes and bike lanes like you would a pothole and not a new capital project.

The capital funding process is a major hindrance to creating new bus and bike lanes. When each bus or bike lane is treated as its own capital project needing a full design review, that means the full network of bus and bike lanes is that much further from completion. However, most bus and bike lane projects usually require only a fraction of the materials that bigger road or rail projects require. This means changes can happen quickly, without the need for an intense planning process.

One approach that other jurisdictions have successfully employed is to treat these low-cost, low-construction impact projects as part of regular street maintenance instead of new capital projects. Thanks to objectives set out in DC’s Complete Streets Policy, the city can ensure any plans related to city streets take into account all users and replace what is missing—even if what is missing is a safe bike lane, or a bus lane that can help move more people on public transportation.

Fairfax County has a similar initiative when it comes to bike lanes. Each year as a part of its road repaving program, the county identifies roads that are due for regular repaving that could support bike lanes. Those bike lanes are added once the repaving is complete as the road is being repainted.

Fairfax still conducts public meetings in neighborhoods where bike lanes are slated to be built. This gives residents a chance to weigh in on concerns about traffic or parking. It has still led to the delay or cancellation of some bike lanes in the county, but on balance the program has allowed Fairfax County’s bike lane mileage to expand dramatically. Most of the county’s 140 miles of bike lanes are due to its summer repaving program, which began in earnest only a few years ago — all at virtually zero cost, thanks to coordination with the already-existing road-maintenance schedules.

One major difference between DC and Fairfax is that Fairfax used this approach to build out its “easy” network of bike lanes (i.e., bike lanes that can be painted with little impact to parking or throughput on a roadway), and DC has mostly painted all of its “easy” bus and bike lanes already. But Fairfax can still serve as a successful precedent in thinking of bus and bike lanes as a maintenance projects rather than capital projects.

DDOT should therefore create a rapid expansion plan that would let the agency quickly paint and install the necessary infrastructure as a part of a street’s regular maintenance schedule. (This would be most successful with local streets that are paid for fully by District funds, which would have fewer hurdles to clear than major roads that receive federal dollars.) Doing so is backed by the city’s Complete Streets Policy and MoveDC’s goal of bus or bike lanes on a majority of DC streets.

If reclassifying bus and bike lanes as maintenance instead of capital projects isn’t an option, the city should look into its capital financing plans and look for improvements to streamline projects, such as working on a rapid expansion plan that would spend time upfront designing facilities for a large area rather than a specific corridor.

The city also needs to be more open to experimenting. For instance, DC should just set up temporary bus and bike lanes on city streets with cones and traffic control officers and see what happens when more space is given to buses and bicycles. Experiments can remove a lot of uncertainty in project planning that can stall a project, particularly when opposition is built on assumptions that can be tested.

The city should also work to standardize the processes that it can so that projects can be designed and built quickly. Additionally, the city should review the transit and bike lane related sections of its design-build standards to find opportunities to shorten timelines.

When the city can point to real data that shows benefits from a project, it becomes harder to argue against a project’s supposed demerits. The results can also turn skeptics into supporters when they get a chance to simply see how things work in the real world.

Finally, experiments are meant to be done quickly and cheaply, which means that when it becomes time to make any changes permanent, the project can be streamlined that much further. It is true that not every experiment may be a success, but a risk-averse mindset also means the city will be forever stuck with an incredibly slow process in building out its transit and bike lane network.

A driver on the Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes in 2010. Image by urbandispute used with permission.

2. Proactively address residents’ traffic and parking concerns when new projects are announced

By far the largest threat to any bus or bike lane project is fear over a project’s impact on traffic congestion and parking. Political opposition can organize quickly (uniting even churches and strip clubs) and quickly morph beyond the mundane traffic impacts and lead to claims that the city is infringing on religious freedoms.

Concerns that bus and bike lanes would increase travel times for cars can be addressed with better outreach. DDOT already has the data it needs to show that bus and bike lanes can be successfully implemented without harming drivers. For instance, the installation of the city’s existing bike lanes helped more than double the number of cyclists in the city in the past ten years. Take the M Street NW bike lane project for example: vehicle travel times barely budged despite losing a travel lane.

DDOT could have information about the positive travel and economic impacts of existing projects available at every public meeting about transit or bike lanes. DDOT could also improve its outreach by creating online materials that address common arguments against bus and bike lanes in a DC-specific context.

The potential loss of parking is a thornier issue because its impact (and therefore its opposition) is more local. The best solution is for the city to come up with better management for on-street parking. That means finding ways to end the large subsidies needed for the city’s current street parking rules that distort everything else when it comes to transportation policy in Washington DC

In some cases, such as with diagonal parking, existing parking spots have been removed to widen curbs or install bike lanes. But there could be corridors where diagonal parking could be preserved or added at the expense of a travel lane. It would bring the benefit of traffic calming to roads beyond the transit or bike lanes. That in turn could help the city meet its Complete Streets and Vision Zero goals in more ways than one.

It is not a solution that can happen every time, and when it cannot, the city needs to stick to its principles in making transportation safer and more sustainable. However, the willingness to at least consider increasing parking in some cases would show flexibility on the city’s part to work with all stakeholders in transit and bike lane projects.

These changes can make small wins possible in the short-term, but we need to change the broader conversation.

The measures outlined above are practical ideas, but do not really address the biggest reason for most of the delays in building bus and bike lanes: politics. Politics rears its head during the community engagement process, when a few vocal individuals — with enough time and resources — can hold up projects that would improve safety for an entire community. Politics comes into play when negative perceptions about a project’s effects become entrenched, and form a rallying cry for people who may not see an immediate benefit to a change in the current transportation landscape.

Worse, politics gets in the way even when the city has the necessary data and legal backing to make big changes. Most city officials don’t want to expend political capital on a bus lane; why go to bat for a single bike lane when people angrily complain about lost parking spots? Inaction is by far the easiest course.

Changing the conversation about how we use our city’s streets is vital, and there are no quick fixes — a topic for another article. But in the meantime, the city can work to streamline current processes and remove obstacles to creating a comprehensive transit and bike lane network.

One of Metro’s top officials in the track department is leaving the agency after three years, according to a memo sent to agency staff on Wednesday, February 14. The memo states that Michael Davis, General Superintendent of Track and Structures, is departing the agency “to pursue other opportunities.”

Davis’ LinkedIn profile says he came to Metro in January of 2015 from Protran, a railway industry technology provider. He spent a majority of his career at the Maryland Transit Administration, moving up from trackman to supervisor to superintendent, and was eventually promoted up to Senior Deputy Administrator & COO of MTA by the time he left in 2013.

Davis’ time at Metro has seen significant changes to the track and structures department at the agency. A third of the department’s track inspectors were fired in January of 2017 on allegations of falsified inspection records stemming from an investigation after the East Falls Church derailment in July of 2016. Contractors were brought in to supplement the track inspection crews and to help provide additional training to Metro’s workers.

The track department came into the news again in July 2017 when WAMU reported the department had used up 70 percent of its non-capital overtime budget in the first three months of the fiscal year. WAMU obtained emails from Davis instructing his subordinates that all non-capital overtime would have to be approved by the department head.

The past three years have seen changes to improve the department as well, stemmed in part due to the Federal Transit Administration taking over safety oversight of Metro. The track maintenance and inspection manual which inspectors use has been overhauled and a brand new version is nearing completion. The department also gave inspectors more power to deem tracks unsafe and pull them from service, a departure from earlier procedures.

The General Superintendent position will temporarily be filled by Leroy Jones, Assistant Director of Plant Maintenance (the group that maintains Metro’s stations and physical infrastructure) while an “open and competitive hiring process” is undertaken.

Top image: Emergency track work. Image by mosley.brian used with permission.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, Metro announced 79 days of track shutdowns and single-tracking affecting all lines. The projects start in July and end in December.

The Rhode Island Avenue shutdown we wrote about last week has been scheduled for Saturday, July 21 and runs for 45 days to Monday, September 3. Rhode Island Ave and Brookland stations will be closed. Metro says they’ll provide shuttle buses, but riders will very likely want to find alternate routes to get to where they need to be.

The second project involves 16 days of single-tracking on the Orange, Silver, and Blue lines between McPherson Square and Smithsonian. Metro says this is to “rebuild the track infrastructure, including installation of new rail, new fasteners, and repairs to the concrete pads that support the rails.” Essentially, very similar to what 2016/2017’s SafeTrack surges did, but in the center core of the system.

During the Orange, Silver, and Blue single-tracking, Metro is warning of “significantly reduced service” on all three lines. The agency says a service schedule will be announced in the summer.

The third shutdown hits the Blue and Yellow lines for four days from Friday November 2 to Monday November 5. National Airport and Crystal City stations will both be closed for Metro to replace the grout pads supporting the tracks outside National, as well as “improving/upgrading” some of the switches near the airport.

And finally, the fourth project will shut down the Yellow Line between Pentagon and L’Enfant stations for 14 days from Monday November 26 to Sunday December 9. Yellow Line trains will only run from Huntington to National and back while Metro does track work on the bridge over the Potomac.

A project previously part of SafeTrack, the replacement of track at Huntington station, has been bumped out to 2019. Snow and lack of contingency time buffer caused the project to get dropped from SafeTrack and it was originally rescheduled for spring of this year. Rescheduling this for 2019 allows Metro to align it better with other capital work, which more than likely will include more station shutdowns to replace several crumbling platforms.

Green Line trains are single-tracking Friday morning during service

Some other repair work is happening now. A press release from Metro issued Wednesday warned Green Line riders to expect delays Friday morning during rush hour. Ultrasonic testing, it says, identified a “possible rail defect in the early stages of forming” in the vicinity of Columbia Heights Station. The agency plans to replace 100 feet of rail overnight Thursday into Friday, but are warning that the work will likely spill over into morning service.

The track work was set to begin Thursday evening around 8 pm and will include single-tracking between U Street and Georgia Ave-Petworth stations. The earlier-scheduled track work between Georgia Ave-Petworth and Fort Totten has been canceled.

Green Line trains will run “less frequently” while the single-tracking is occurring, but the release doesn’t note how often that will be. The trains run every eight minutes during rush hour, but will continue running less often during rush as the trackwork continues. Yellow Line trains will only run between Huntington and Mt. Vernon Square during the track work as well.

While only 100 feet in length, Metro says the “complex nature” of the rail replacement work is what will cause the extended track work length. Roger Bowles, a founding member of Rail Transit Ops, notes that the track area in question is in a tunnel on a curve where a “restraining rail” is in place. The restraining rail is an additional piece of rail placed on the inside of a curve and helps prevent the train’s wheels from sliding off the track and counters the physical forces which would cause a train to keep moving in a straight direction instead of following the curve.

We bought our house in Edgewood for the Red Line. It seems naive now, but having moved to the city in 2007, my wife and I saw the Red Line as the key to living an efficient, healthy, and environmentally-friendly urban life. We even had our first kiss at the Dupont Metro. After SafeTrack “Surge #10” shut down the Brookland and Rhode Island Avenue Red Line stops for 24 days in November 2016, we thought we had paid our dues and were in the clear.

Interestingly, during that shutdown our neighborhood went multimodal. Some people took advantage of a well-timed unlimited Lyft promotion, but many used the Metropolitan Branch Trail or took the G8 bus. The G8 bus replicates part of the Red Line, running from Woodridge to Farragut West and passing both the Brookland and Rhode Island Avenue metro stops.

This summer, Metro is again shutting down part of the Red Line, this time for a month and a half. Instead of merely bemoaning the inconvenience, we should use this opportunity to experiment with other transit options that could benefit the area after track work ends.

Pop-up bus lanes offer opportunity for experimentation

Since 2016, Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie worked to establish the new rush hour G9 bus, which runs along the length of Rhode Island Avenue from Woodridge to 13th Street.

The G8 bus, which replicates, the Red Line (left), and the G9 Rhode Island Ave Limited Line, which provides faster service (right). Image by WMATA.

Then in January of 2018, ANC5E unanimously passed a Comprehensive Transportation Resolution containing a number of ideas to make it easier for everyone to get around our area. One of these was to use future Metro track work as an opportunity to pilot “pop-up” bus lanes on Rhode Island Avenue.

These pop-up lanes are designed to alleviate the impact of the surge of bus riders on existing commuters, as well as to explore the impact a bus lane might have on travel times. These experiments can be very useful: the Boston suburb of Everett, Massachusetts recently made a pop-up lane permanent, and DC has previously explored such bus lanes for 16th St NW.

Let’s make this crisis a productive one

Metro is once again closing the Brookland and Rhode Island Avenue stops this summer for 45 days from July 21-September 3. I am calling on Metro and DDOT leadership to create a temporary bus lane from Rhode Island Avenue to the Shaw Metro stops during this shutdown.

Using this crisis as an opportunity is essential to being proactive about the future of transit in our city. With all of Metro’s issues, should the best alternatives for getting around be biking for those who are able and willing, and rideshare for those who can afford it? What about people who don’t fall into those categories? Why not make buses a better way to get around the city?

Safetrack shuttle route.

While a bus lane would not solve the issues of those who are farther up the line, it would make the G8 and G9 buses a viable metro alternative for residents near the Brookland and Rhode Island Avenue metro stops. As an ANC commissioner I am particularly focused on my neighborhood, but would support additional priority lanes during the shutdown for the shuttles running from NoMa to Fort Totten or along North Capitol Street for the 80 bus.

Rhode Island Avenue is six lanes wide (thanks to being a former streetcar route) and has no parking in the far lane during rush hour. Enforcing the existing parking restriction and putting up cones during the shutdown would have minimal cost for Metro and a tangible benefit both for existing G8/G9 riders and those who switch due to the shutdown.

Using a short-term pilot is a chance to try something new that might expose problems with the idea or bring to light a long term solution we didn’t consider. Since we’ve got plenty of Metro crises, let’s not waste them: let’s use bus priority lanes for any long-term closures.

]]>Thu, 15 Feb 2018 17:25:00 +0000Edward Garnett (Guest Contributor)Have you seen these Metro maps? We made a book!https://ggwash.org/view/66508/have-you-seen-these-metro-maps-we-made-a-book
https://ggwash.org/view/66508/have-you-seen-these-metro-maps-we-made-a-book

Greater Greater Washington readers love Metro maps. Over the last 10 years, we've featured a bunch of custom Metro maps on the site, from time-lapses of its development and sketches of future expansion to parody maps. Now, you can see them in print on your table too!

Donate to our reader drive today and get our new book

In honor of our 10th anniversary, we made a book of some of the best custom Metro maps you've seen on GGWash, and a few others as well.

Want a copy for yourself? Donate today! Just $10 a month or a $50 one-time donation gets you your own copy of the book.

Original Metro concept sketches from the 1960s. A decade-by-decade look at how Metro has expanded over the last 40 years. The 11 types of Metro station architecture. And creations from the late transit graphic designer Peter Dovak, including his last piece of work for GGWash, the Halloween version of the Metro map.

Like WhichWMATA? You'll get a bonus analog version of the online quiz. (Sorry, it doesn't count toward your cumulative score!)

Why your support matters

You know that GGWash serves a unique niche in Washington's media landscape. If you turn to GGWash for wonky, policy, data-driven news about the housing, transportation, land use, and urban policy decisions happening across the region, please help pay for it.

Donations from readers are an important part of our budget. Your individual contributions help pay for costs to keep the site up and running, including having a full-time editor. Your support also means we can bring you local elections coverage through an urbanism lens and advocate for smarter urbanist policies.

Southeastern Fairfax County could see big transportation improvements along Richmond Highway (the local name for US Route 1), including an extended Yellow Line, Bus Rapid Transit, and new bike and pedestrian infrastructure. These improvements are badly needed in the area where commutes are long and many residents rely heavily on transit. The transit changes could even help organize the area's suburban sprawl back into a string of distinct places with their own identities.

These are the transportation problems in the area

South of the City of Alexandria, Richmond Highway is a busy commercial street lined with sprawling shopping centers with housing subdivisions behind the main drag. (Confusingly, this part of Fairfax County is also known as Alexandria, thanks to the Post Office.) Further south, the road runs alongside Fort Belvoir, which has seen a lot of job growth thanks to the Base Realignment and Closure. The area is relatively affordable, but has also been a little neglected when it comes to investment from the county.

Incomes are lower here relative to other parts of Fairfax. Despite geographic closeness to job centers in Alexandria, Springfield, and even Fort Belvoir, commutes are still long. This is due to a double whammy of residents relying on public transportation despite the area not being that transit friendly, and the fact that Richmond Highway is a major commercial street and commuting road. That can lead to huge traffic backups, which have gotten worse as more jobs have come to Fort Belvoir and other parts of the area that still does not have great transit. It has also made walking and biking bad options when it comes to getting around, putting more people into cars or stuck waiting for the bus.

Fairfax County has been trying to come up with solutions for the area since 2015. Using a process called "Embark Richmond Highway," the county studied various transit options including light rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), and extending the Yellow Line. Now the county has an idea of what they want to change! Using what Fairfax calls a "hybrid" approach, neighborhoods along Richmond highway could get a mix of new metro stations and a BRT system.

Extending the Yellow Line

Part of the plan would be to extend Metro's Yellow Line from Huntington to Hybla Valley, and two new stations would be built at Hybla Valley and Beacon Hill, respectively. Both areas are home to large shopping centers that could be redeveloped to become new neighborhoods with retail, offices, and new homes built around a street grid. It would be a smaller-scale redevelopment than Tysons Corner or Potomac Yard.

A new street grid would help people walk between new homes and an eventual metro station. Image by Fairfax County.

The Yellow Line is well suited for an extension. It does not have the same congestion problems crossing the river into DC like the Silver/Orange/Blue Lines, and Huntington was built with the expectation the line would one day be extended.

Similar redevelopment is happening right now closer to Huntington. The Penn-Daw shopping center closer to Huntington has been building on its property to include new apartments in addition to retail. Even that will be dwarfed once hundreds of new apartments and townhomes come to the the site of the soon-to-be former Huntington Condo Club.

The plan calls for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that would mostly run in the median of Richmond Highway from Huntington to Fort Belvoir and eventually Woodbridge. If extended to Woodbridge the BRT line would be about 15 miles long, dwarfing MetroWay, a BRT line running in Arlington and Alexandria, and Richmond's Pulse BRT line which should open later this year.

BRT would build on the success of the Richmond Highway Express (REX) buses that run along Richmond Highway today. The buses run often and cover major destinations both along Richmond Highway and in the City of Alexandria, but the lack of a dedicated lane means the buses can get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else. New stations and BRT lanes would improve the experience for the many people living along Richmond Highway who depend on transit but live in an area built for cars.

BRT running in a median in California. Image by Erick Fredericks used with permission.

Road widening and pedestrian/bike improvements

There are no bike lanes along Richmond Highway and sidewalks can be inconsistent, especially further south closer to Woodbridge. Plans would put sidewalks along the whole route and install dedicated bicycle paths. Combined with efforts to create walkable street grids in place of current sprawling shopping centers, this would make Richmond Highway far more accessible to pedestrians than it is today. That's especially important in this area of Fairfax County, which sees a higher proportion of households that do not have a car.

That being said, the road for cars will be widened as well. The plan calls for a uniform six traffic lanes along the length of the route. At the moment it is inconsistent, which can lead to backups on top of the regular traffic. With BRT slated to run in the median and at least six lanes of for personal vehicles, any person trying to cross Richmond Highway is going to have to deal with long waits.

Local governments have a tough time when it comes to providing better transit, pedestrian, or bicycle options for people while simultaneously making it look like things are not going to get worse for drivers. The end result is plans for transit, walking, and biking in the middle of super wide roads. That is a challenge today in Tysons Corner, where construction to continue widening Route 7 and Route 123 are well underway. It's also a problem in Montgomery County's super-wide Rockville Pike, which will feature 18 travel lanes for people to cross. Richmond Highway looks modest being "only" 178 feet wide, compared to Rockville Pike's 252 feet.

Still, it's a big improvement to be able to walk or bike anywhere along Richmond Highway and not worry about losing your path, or to be able to ride in a bus that avoids the worst of congestion. Embark Richmond Highway is an ambitious plan that would bring a slew of benefits to a part of Fairfax that does not get as much attention as other parts of the county.

There is still a lot of work to be done. Current plans envision all of this being in place by 2040, meaning planners, officials, and communities will have to work together to get the necessary studies done and the funding in place. Doing so will help current residents and give neighborhoods their identity back. One day, Richmond Highway could become another one of the region's great transit success stories.

Metro’s new 7000-series railcars are drawing more electricity from the railcar propulsion system than the old cars, causing the agency to need to set aside more money to power its trains. The agency’s newest budget proposal includes an additional $6 million budgeted for electricity on top of the previous year's request to allow continued operations.

Metro’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget notes that its energy costs are expected to increase by $5.6 million (from $87.7 million to $93.5 million), which is “primarily due to increased propulsion usage of the new 7000 series railcars.” The planned cost increase comes a year after the agency reduced the total number of trains running in the system during rush hour from 143 to 125. Trains used to run every six minutes during rush hour, but they now only come every eight.

Translating the additional cost into actual power usage, Metro’s tests showed that an 8-car 7000-series train pulling another 8-car 7000 draws a maximum of 11,208 amps from stop to full acceleration when departing a station. Metro says the rail system is designed for max train power draw of 12,960 amps, so the additional load doesn’t indicate a larger issue or require any extra changes.

Public knowledge of the 7000-series power increase first came to light in the FY2018 Q1 Vital Signs report, which noted that in mid-August 2017 Metro “put in place a 35 mile per hour speed restriction covering almost 23 miles of track...to reduce trains’ traction power while Metro completes an analysis to optimize the power system used to propel trains.”

Metro sets aside additional money to power its 7000-series railcars

Energy costs for the overall Metro system have risen from $83 million in FY2016 to $83.3 million in FY2017, then to an estimated $87.7 million in FY2018, and now to a projected $93.5 in the upcoming budget. The 7000-series railcars were first introduced in the last quarter of FY2016, and now make up approximately 40 percent of the Metrorail fleet. Metro policy limits the cars so they only run in 8-car trainsets during service. None run as 6-car trains, although they're technically capable of doing so.

The power costs just for the railcar propulsion portion of the system’s energy costs — which doesn’t include buses or other electricity needs — is forecast to increase from $47.9 million in FY2018 to $53.9 million if the Metro Board approves the FY2019 budget later this spring. That's an increase of $6 million, or about 9 percent.

The amount of power a train draws is very dependent on a number of factors, and can be constantly changing. Power draw not only goes up or down depending on number of people in a car, but how long the HVAC system is working, the grade of tracks, etc.

The increase in power consumption in the new cars was big enough, according to one source, that it triggered the General Manager’s office to order a study to determine what was causing the difference. Testing to validate how much power the new cars actually draw recently wrapped up and the results are now being analyzed.

In response to a request for information, a Metro spokesperson confirmed that the newest cars indeed draw more power than the older legacy cars, but says “it does not come close to exceeding the capacity of the system.

Metro also notes that work is already underway to upgrade the entire rail system to support 100 percent 8-car trains over time; Metro is increasing the amount of power available to pump into the third rail system at Traction Power Substations which transform electricity from Dominion and PEPCO into the power that the trains can actually use.

The power consumption issue has reportedly been handled as a “top priority” for some Metrorail senior management, and multiple department heads became involved in testing to help determine the root causes of the increase. Testing was performed not only to validate how much the railcars and each of their subsystems consume, but to compare the “real life” numbers to the technical specs provided by the manufacturer, Kawasaki, to determine where any differences may lie.

It appears that the power consumption increase is not due to the propulsion system which moves the cars — which a source described as even being slightly more efficient than the older cars — but rather the auxiliary power system, which powers things including the air conditioning and heater system.

Fine-tuning software configuration changes has been ongoing

The new cars came to Metro with brand-new management software systems which none of the older “legacy” cars use, and has been tweaked over time to find what settings are most efficient. The new cars are a lot more like computers than the older ones, so more settings can be updated easier than in the past.

One configuration change included in this is the level at which the cars send power back into the third rail power system when the train cars are braking. Metro railcars include a feature called regenerative (or "dynamic") braking, where power generated while the railcar is slowing down can be fed back into the third rail power system. This power can then be used by other trains in the vicinity instead of “new” power from the power grid that Metro is paying for.

Metro's legacy cars are configured to feed power back into the third rail system until a lower threshold of 760 volts is reached, just above the third rail’s nominal power voltage of 750 volts. That same threshold for the 7000-series has been set to 840 volts, which would reduce the amount of power that braking Metro trains are generating and putting back into the system.

A higher cutoff for the regenerative braking system means that less power would be feeding back to the traction power system, but doesn’t necessarily indicate higher power draw. Newer, more efficient electronics on the cars — including better capacitors to store power — mean that the generated power could be used more on the railcar itself, changing how and where the power is consumed.

Railcar weight could be — but likely isn’t — part of the issue

It is unclear if further Metro tests of the various railcar systems has narrowed down the difference to any specific subsystems or parts, but one system - the Auxiliary Power Supply - is one that a source noted draws more power than old cars. This system runs things like the HVAC in the cars, and reportedly draws around 20 percent more power than the older ones. That's not a massive increase by itself, but one that adds up over time as the cars run every day during service. Each 7000-series railcar has its own components (the LVPS) which comprise the APS system; the old cars have one LVPS per pair, which could also be a contributor.

Weight is another possible factor, but not likely a large one. The 7000-series railcars do in fact weigh more than the previous cars Metro runs, but the difference in the long run ends up being relatively minor. The 1000-series each weigh 72,000 pounds when empty, while an empty 7000-series railcar weighs 85,000 pounds for a difference of 13,000 pounds (18 percent). Loaded with 120 passengers each and utilizing the average weight of an adult American person of 182.1 pounds, the weights of each resulting car ends up being 93,852 and 106,852 pounds for an 8.8 percent weight difference.

The weight difference is such that an empty 7000-series train, Metro says, requires less power to move than a crush-loaded 5000-series. The number of people on the cars and other system factors change the amount of power, but not by vast differences.

Railcar reliability numbers are still going up

While the new cars might be pulling more power than expected, they’re otherwise still on their way to achieving the reliability requirements Metro set out in its contract with Kawasaki. The contract requires the cars to meet a minimum threshold of 20,800 miles Mean Distance Between Failures (MDBF), and the latest Metro Performance Report says that the cars exceeded 21,500 MDBF in August of 2017. The average for July through December was 17,800 MDBF. This statistic includes when any component on the railcar fails, not just when an issue on a railcar causes a train to be delayed.

The same cars averaged 12,485 MDBD from January to March 2017, while the total fleet including all 2/3000, 5000, and 6000’s, averaged 7,089 MDBD.

As of this writing, Metro has received at least 488 of the new cars, with 748 total #newcars expected to be delivered within the next few years.

Discussion of Metrorail’s fall in ridership has become commonplace over the past several years. However, since transit ridership has been falling nationwide, it is worthwhile to note that its ridership has fallen significantly even compared to other systems. Furthermore, by the possibly-more-useful statistic of ridership per route mile, Metrorail’s ridership is clearly lower than that of legacy rapid transit systems, due to basic decisions made during the design of the system.

Metrorail’s total ridership has fallen to third place nationally

Before Metrorail’s recent safety and maintenance problems led to a ridership decline, Metrorail had long had the second-highest ridership of any of the country’s 13 heavy rail rapid-transit systems (what people commonly think of as “subways” or “metros.”)

As recently as 2012, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), a trade group of nearly all major American transit operators, reported that Metrorail had an average weekday ridership of 900,000 passengers, over twenty percent more than the 730,000 average weekday passengers on the next-most-used system, the Chicago L.[1]

However, in 2012, neither city came close to the New York Subway’s 8,400,000 average weekday passengers, as might be expected given the size of the New York metro area and the city’s much higher transit usage than other American metro areas. Although the New York subway, like most American transit systems, has lost some ridership in recent years, its total ridership is so much higher than other systems that it is often easier to leave it out in comparing the ridership of different systems.

When we compare Metrorail’s ridership drop-off to the other eleven heavy rail systems in the US, it becomes clear that Metrorail’s drop-off has been significantly larger than for other systems, even ones, such as the Boston T, that have faced their own maintenance crises in the past few years.

The drop-off in Metrorail ridership has brought the system to a clear third-place behind Chicago, although it still ranks on the high end of rapid transit ridership in the United States. Ridership within the three core jurisdictions of the District, Arlington, and Alexandria is just below the entirety of San Francisco’s BART and the SEPTA rapid transit lines in Philadelphia. Ridership within the District alone is roughly tied with that on Atlanta’s MARTA which, like BART, was built at roughly the same time as Metrorail and with similar design principles.[2]

Ridership per mile is a better metric, but it makes Metrorail look worse

I already highlighted one issue with directly comparing the ridership of different subway systems: the pools of potential riders are not the same for all systems. It’s hardly surprising that New York, the largest city and the heart of the largest metro area in the country would have the highest ridership, but that Los Angeles — the second largest city in the country — has the ninth-most-ridden system in the country clearly says something about the relative importance of the subway lines there.

However, comparing ridership to the size of a city or its metro area is really only useful for long-term discussions of a city’s transit system. The low ridership of the Los Angeles subway compared to the city’s size is likely due to the fact that the city itself is spread out and very little of it is served by the subway lines that exist. Unlike the drop-off in Metrorail ridership, which appears to have been caused by service degradation, and so could likely be reversed with improved service, only large-scale, expensive, and slow construction could conceivably give Los Angeles subway ridership comparable to New York’s.

From a shorter-term perspective it is more useful to compare the ridership of rail systems to total lengths of their lines. This gives a better idea how heavily used a city’s existing infrastructure is, and how crowded the system will be perceived to be by riders. Furthermore, since operating costs, such as maintenance, power, and paying train crews should roughly scale with the size of the system, this gives a better approximation of ridership compared to operating cost.

When we compare the ridership per route mile of the 13 heavy rail rapid transit systems in the United States, we find that New York’s lead has shrunk to less than a factor of three over the next-most-heavily-used systems. However, we also find that Metrorail is much closer to the center of the pack.

The PATH system that connects New York to Newark, the Boston T, the Los Angeles Metro, Philadelphia’s SEPTA, and the Chicago L all have higher ridership per route mile on their rapid transit lines than Metrorail as a whole does. Metrorail does still have higher ridership per route mile than its sister-systems in San Francisco and Atlanta, but its lead there has fallen significantly since 2014.

In thinking about these low ridership numbers, it is worth keeping in mind that Metrorail (and BART and MARTA) were designed to do a fundamentally different job than pre-World War II systems like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago’s rapid transit. Rapid transit systems in these cities generally only serve the core city and its closest-in suburbs; their builders expected the cities’ large commuter rail systems to be sufficient to serve the outer suburbs.

On the other hand, Metrorail, BART, and MARTA were built in cities that had never had comparable commuter rail networks, and they were built in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, when mainline passenger rail in the US was seen as a dying industry. As such, they were built as hybrid systems, with closely-spaced stations in dense, built-up areas in the urban core, but with long suburban lines intended to substitute for commuter rail service.

Since the suburban segments of Metrorail have longer distances between stations, and also serve areas that are generally less transit-friendly, one would expect them to have less ridership per route mile than the core of the system. I confirmed this by calculating separate ridership per route mile values for the portion of Metrorail in the District, Arlington, and Alexandria, and for the portion in the District alone.

In October 2014, the values for these truncated systems calculated only counting trips entirely within the truncated system — were still lower than the New York Subway, PATH, and the Boston T, but they exceeded the ridership of the Los Angeles Metro, SEPTA, and the Chicago L.

However, the severe decline in Metrorail ridership meant that by October 2016, the District-only system was in sixth place, after the New York Subway, PATH, the Boston T, SEPTA, and the Los Angeles Metro, while both the District, Arlington, and Alexandria system and the whole Metrorail system were in seventh place, with sixth going to Chicago.

Light rail is insignificant in DC, but plays a significant role in other cities

So far, these comparisons have been solely between heavy rail rapid transit systems: systems that technologically look very similar to Metro, with high-capacity cars, high platforms for simpler boarding, power from an electrified third rail (usually), and complete grade separation from other traffic.

However, an increasing number of cities have large light rail networks, which can be anything from streetcars running in mixed traffic to systems that can be indistinguishable from heavy rail to a casual observer. Furthermore, while DC only has one very short light rail line — the H Street Streetcar — many cities’ rapid transit systems are integrated with extensive light rail networks.

Light rail systems are designed for lower capacity than heavy rail rapid transit systems, and they usually do have lower ridership. However, some of the busiest light rail systems in the country have ridership comparable to or higher than the least-used heavy rail systems.

Including light rail pushes Metrorail to number four in terms of total ridership, as the Boston T’s light rail lines—the busiest in the country—push its October 2016 ridership to almost the same level as the Chicago L, which has no light rail component. Ridership on SEPTA in Philadelphia and the Los Angeles Metro is also significantly increased by the inclusion of light rail, as these systems have substantial light rail components.

To get a clearer view of how much ridership has dropped — or risen — on various systems, I made a graph of the percentage change in ridership from October 2014 to October 2016 on rapid transit and light rail systems that have relatively high total ridership or ridership per mile.

While at first glance, it appears that several systems had major ridership increases between 2014 and 2016, on closer inspection, it becomes clear that all of these systems had significant expansions during that time frame. Seattle’s Link Light Rail opened two new stations, including a connection to the University of Washington, in March 2016 and a third station in September 2016. Houston’s METRO opened two new lines with a total of 17 total stations, in May 2015. And Phoenix’s Valley Metro Rail opened four new stations in August 2015 and another four in March 2016.

While Minneapolis did not open any light rail stations between October 2014 and October 2016, it did double the size of its system by opening the Green Line, connecting Minneapolis and St. Paul, in June 2014, and this data may capture some of the ridership rise that resulted from the Green Line’s opening.

On the other hand, most systems have dropped in ridership, although the amounts of the drops have varied from very small to Metrorail, which, at about 20 percent, has the largest drop in the country, followed by Baltimore’s Metro Subway and Light Rail and Denver’s RTD Light Rail.

While including light rail ridership necessarily increases the total ridership of systems with light rail components, it can lower the ridership per mile for these systems, if the light rail components of the systems have lower ridership than the heavy rail components.

In fact, this happens for the three major systems that have significant light rail components, and especially for Los Angeles, which has lower ridership per route mile than the pure light rail systems in San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Seattle. As a result, only the New York Subway, the New York-to-Newark PATH system, the Boston T, and the Chicago L have higher ridership per route mile than Metrorail when light rail is included.

Metrorail’s ridership is falling, but still relatively high by national standards

The recent drop in Metrorail ridership has lowered it from second to third or fourth place in terms of total ridership, depending on whether one counts light rail. This drop should be concerning, and serve as yet another reminder of why it is essential that Metro receive the funding and oversight necessary to return the system to normal operations.

However, it is also important to recognize that in terms of how heavily used the system is compared to the size of the system, Metrorail is, historically and currently, only the fifth or seventh busiest system in the country. A significant cause of this is the fact that the system was designed to serve low-density suburban areas as well as the region’s dense core.

Metrorail service to outer suburbs is important, and necessary to the functioning of the region’s transportation network. However, stakeholders—both in suburban communities and in the District—need to recognize that this adds costs to the system that cannot be made up for simply by raising fares. Furthermore, any future suburban expansion of the system, such as Phase II of the Silver Line, will make this problem worse; such expansions will almost certainly add less ridership to the system than is proportionate with their additions to its size.

About the data

All data on heavy and light rail rapid transit ridership used in this article is from a post on WMATA’s PlanItMetro blog for Metrorail ridership by trip origin and destination in October 2014, and from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)’s reports for the entire WMATA Metrorail system and systems in other cities in October 2014 and October 2016.

All ridership values in this article are given in “unlinked trips,” as this is the standard APTA uses for releasing ridership data. Unlinked trip counts treat each transfer as a new trip; a passenger riding from New Carrollton to Union Station and transferring at Metro Center would count as two rides. Since a trip involving a transfer counts as two unlinked trips, it is possible that some of the decreases seen in unlinked trips are actually decreases in transfers due to riders deciding to walk further to avoid making a transfer.

[1] These values — and all ridership values in this article — are given in “unlinked trips,” as this is the standard APTA uses for releasing ridership data. Unlinked trip counts treat each transfer as a new trip; a passenger riding from New Carrollton to Union Station and transferring at Metro Center would count as two rides.

[2] For these comparisons, I am specifically considering October ridership because WMATA has released ridership numbers between station pairs for October 2014, allowing calculation of the ridership in individual portions of the system. October 2016 ridership in portions of the system was calculated by assuming all parts of the system lost ridership proportionally.

Repair work is needed on platforms at most stations between National Airport down to Huntington, as well as others throughout the Metrorail system. The granite edges at some of these stations are on braces, as they’re less and less able to hold their own weight. Single-tracking or full shutdowns will be required to allow crews to access and fix the issues.

Inbound platform at King Street Metro Station showing a number of braces supporting the platform’s granite edge. Image by the author.

Metro issued a Request For Information (RFI) in late January asking for input from construction companies about how they might best rehabilitate and/or replace some of the rail system’s platforms. The RFI is unique in that it refers to complete replacement of some platforms down to the concrete slabs under the granite edges, which would require extended outages.

It’s unknown how many station platforms Metro is thinking they might need to replace. The timeline for when work might be done has not yet been defined, and could potentially still change.

As a hypothetical question, Metro asked companies how much work they might be able to get done if a station needing rehab work was shut down for 90 days during the summer — no rail service on either track, 24/7 for the full 90 days. It notes that “Due to the number of platforms that need to be rebuilt, it is known that a single contract for the program will cover multiple years.”

Degraded platforms are a safety issue

Each Metrorail platform consists of three sections: the main center tiled section which makes up the majority of the platform, a two-foot ADA detectable warning surface with bumps, and strips of granite with built-in train approach warning lights.

If you’ve ever looked out the front or back of a Metro train, you may have noticed that there’s nothing under the granite platform edges. The empty space is there to act as an emergency refuge area to get out of the way of an oncoming train if someone were to happen to fall down onto the trackbed. Braces — which by all accounts should only be a temporary patch — supporting the platform not only indicate structural support issues, but also block easy access to quickly get out of the way of an oncoming train.

Platform braces shown on the inbound track at Braddock Road Metro Station. Image by the author.

One station getting special attention is Rhode Island Avenue, which underwent emergency repairs and closed for a weekend in late 2017 following two incidents in which chunks of concrete fell to the ground.

In a separate RFI, Metro is considering allowing the station to be shut down for 44 days to allow a contractor to perform a large amount of work: replacing all the concrete ceiling tiles, track deck slabs, platform supports, track deck edges, and more. As this is only an RFI and not a legal agreement between Metro and a contractor, there is no date or timeframe yet set when the work would be performed. But Metro has set aside $6 million in its capital budget to pay for repairs to the station.

Platform braces on the inbound track at National Airport Metro Station. Image by the author.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) inspectors made note of the jacks holding up some of the platforms, specifically at King Street, during Surge 13. “FWSO [FTA WMATA Safety Oversight] inspectors noted deteriorating conditions at station platforms, currently being supported with jacks, which is not scheduled to be corrected in the SafeTrack scope of work.”

Service changes learned from past work

Other stations that have undergone platform rehab work include Deanwood and Minnesota Ave in a major six-year construction project on the Orange/Blue lines which wrapped up in 2016. However in that case, the two stations’ platforms were replaced without completely shutting the station down.

That meant trains single-tracked through the stations when work was being performed which kept service running, but slowed down the speed that the work was accomplished. To that effect, a slideshow presented to the Riders Advisory Committee back in 2007 provided an overview of the “new porcelain tile standard” which would be used during the rehab, nine years before the project finished up.

One of the apparent lessons that Metro learned during SafeTrack is that major construction projects work better as full track shutdowns instead of providing single-track service. Several surges originally announced by Metro during the program originally scheduled to have single-tracking were changed later to be full shutdowns. Metro said this was done “to minimize the customer impact elsewhere on the system and to maximize productivity.”

We previously wrote how Metro’s old method of defaulting to doing work during single-tracking instead of weekend or extended shutdowns is part of how the agency’s track repair backlog grew so long.

Private, high-speed trains are now a reality in the United States: I recently rode Brightline between West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale. While I loved my travel experience, as a planner, I'm keenly aware that Brightline’s service model cannot be easily copied by public transportation agencies.

Brightline is the name of a privately-owned train that currently operates between West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Service will extend to downtown Miami in a few months and eventually, all the way to the Orlando International Airport. All Aboard Florida, a passenger rail project connecting Miami to Orlando, operates Brightline. Florida East Coast Industries (FECI) is the parent company for All Aboard Florida, as well as other real estate and logistics companies.

Here's my travel experience in Florida

Brightline runs approximately every hour during the week and every 90 minutes on the weekend. I rode roundtrip from West Palm Beach to Fort Lauderdale on a Saturday afternoon. For me, Brightline combined the perks of airline travel with the convenience of high speed rail. Here are some key highlights:

Station Locations: The three stations in Southeast Florida are all in downtown areas, surrounded by high-density development, grocery stores, and businesses. In West Palm Beach, I felt like I could reach everything I would need daily within a comfortable 15 minute walk.

brightpink Select Coach. Image by the author.

Fares: Brightline is offering introductory fares, so I expect the low prices I received to go up eventually. My Select (Business Class) ticket one way was $15, and the Smart (Coach) ticket is $10. If I drove between the two stations it would cost $51.23, using GSA’s mileage reimbursement rates. The distance between the two Florida stations is slightly longer than DC to Baltimore. For an upcoming Saturday afternoon, Northeast Regional Service between DC and Baltimore has fares as low as $18, while Acela service is currently $46 (for Feb 3, looked up on January 29).

Travel Times: It took 39 minutes from West Palm Beach to Fort Lauderdale and 38 minutes on the return; the schedule time was 40 minutes. To drive between the two stations would have been 57 minutes outbound and 46 minutes coming back.

On Board: I went through security in a process smoother than my best TSA Pre-Check experience (and with a lot fewer people). The waiting area, especially the Select Lounge, felt like I was in an airline’s lounge. On board, the Select car felt similar to Amtrak’s quiet car, while the Smart seat was louder. Attendants walk down the aisle with refreshments, much like on an airplane.

Here's why others can't be just like Brightline

Brightline cost billions to build, and it was built without direct public funding. That being said, several things give it an advantage that public transportation agencies do not have.

2. All Aboard Florida’s business model includes revenues from nearby real estate developments. It owns several acres of developable land around the Brightline stations, and it has several projects under construction. In West Palm Beach, All Aboard Florida is building Park-Line, a new 24-story residential tower, right next to the Brightline station.

When a public agency uses revenue from real estate development to fund transportation operations, this is called "Value Capture." Some transit agencies – like WMATA – engage in Joint Development projects, but value capture mechanisms are rarely used in the United States. They often require state or local enabling legislation.

3. During my ride, I noticed several “official partners” of Brightline. There is an Official Energy Partner, an Official Tourism Partner, a Rideshare Partner, a Drink Partner, etc. These corporate sponsorships are not something public agencies can easily have. While some larger transit agencies such a RTD in Denver and CTA in Chicago have corporate partnerships, the procurement rules or politics within most local governments would prohibit this revenue source.

Brightline is designed to serve specific traveler markets and because it is owned by a privately held company, that's okay. The introductory fares – and especially, the eventual market-rate fares that will be charged – are unlikely to be affordable for low-income riders. Currently, Brightline does not offer discounted fares for students or low-income riders and it has no legal obligation to do so, unlike public transportation providers.

Riding local buses between the two cities requires transfers and two different transit agencies. Tri-Rail, the regional commuter rail service, takes at least an hour. The key is whether or not the Brightline service complements local bus service, commuter rail service, and driving. What that balance is and how to achieve it is something to watch over the coming years.

Brightline's train tracks. Image by the author.

It is a false assumption that public transit agencies can use Brightline’s entire playbook, but they can use some of its plays. There aren’t many locations where right-of-way is readily-available and cheap. Brightline also had access to developable land for transit-oriented development in already booming neighborhoods – an expensive and infrequent possibility in most cities. Generating revenue, such as with corporate sponsorships, is more realistic.

I’m already looking forward to my next ride, hopefully to the new Miami station. However, I do so with the understanding that Brightline’s story is its own and cannot necessarily be broadly applied to public transportation in the United States.

Prince George's County residents generally contend with worse transit access than people living in other parts of the region, our analysis shows. Even though much of the population lives in relatively dense communities inside the Beltway, more than half of Prince George's residents are unable to access their county courthouse in Upper Marlboro by transit.

Discussions of transit ridership and service both tend to focus on commutes to work, in part because doing so is easy: the Census's American Communities Survey reports information on people's commuting methods, and various data exists on the location of employers.

However, commuting to work is hardly the only travel people do. Trips for shopping, medical appointments, worship, and to visit government offices are also very important. Unfortunately, Prince George's residents are particularly disadvantaged when it comes to transit access to local government.

The distance from the county seat to its population centroid is the second largest in Maryland, as contributor Matt Johnson pointed out in his post on the subject in 2013. Buses from many places in the county don't get to Upper Marlboro by the start of jury duty time.

Prince George's residents are contending with a dearth of transit

It is difficult to quantify the quality of transit access in a single number since many factors are relevant. These factors include the frequency of service, the length of travel times to major destinations — which of course depends on the distance to those destinations — and what fraction of the population actually has access.

A common example of the problem residents face is that they generally have longer transit trips to work — particularly to higher-paying jobs — than other residents in the region. These problems are worse for commutes outside the normal rush hour, since the county's bus service, called TheBus, doesn't provide service on evenings or weekends.

Of course, this issue is not solely one of transit, but also of the fact that jobs in the Washington region tend to be concentrated in the western half, meaning that Prince George's residents are farther from the average job than their distance from downtown might suggest.

Travel to Upper Marlboro by transit is particularly difficult

Visiting government offices is where Prince George's residents are at a particular disadvantage. Their county seat, Upper Marlboro, is located in the rural outer tier of the county, far from the center of population and the dense, transit-dependent neighborhoods inside the Beltway. Upper Marlboro is connected to the rest of the county by two TheBus routes: the 21, which runs to the New Carrollton Metro Station, and the 20, which runs to the Addison Road Metro Station.

Since the last bus to New Carollton leaves at 6:00 pm and the last bus to Addison Road leaves at 6:40 pm, it is essentially impossible for residents to attend evening public hearings or council meetings and return home by bus. While participating in public hearings is important, it is not legally required. On the other hand, all citizens are expected to serve on juries, so it is even more essential that county residents be able to get to the county courthouse in Upper Marlboro in time for jury service in the morning.

Using the GTFS feeds for the transit services that serve Prince George's County: WMATA, the Maryland Transit Administration (which runs MARC and some commuter buses), and TheBus, contributor Chris Slatt created a map of travel times by transit to reach Upper Marlboro by 7:30 am on a weekday.

Map of travel time to reach Upper Marlboro by 7:30am on weekdays. Created with OTP Analyst. Image by Chris Slatt.

Looking at this map, it is immediately obvious that residents of the rural southern tier of Prince George's County and of the northern tier in the vicinity of Laurel cannot reach Upper Marlboro by transit. Residents of outside-the-Beltway areas south of US-50 mostly are able to reach Upper Marlboro in ninety minutes or less. However, residents of Bowie — which is one of the densest areas of the county outside the Beltway — need nearly two hours to reach Upper Marlboro, if it is possible for them to do so at all.

A map of census block groups in the DC area with population densities of at least five thousand people per square mile. Image by DW Rowlands.

Most concerning is that residents of the northeastern portion of the county inside the Beltway — which is generally the densest and most transit oriented part of the county, as it largely consists of former streetcar suburbs — is either unable to reach Upper Marlboro at all, or needs more than ninety minutes to do so. It turns out that less than half — roughly 45 percent — of the population of Prince George's can reach the county courthouse in ninety minutes or less by transit.

It is much easier for Montgomery County residents to reach Rockville

Prince George's County's neighbor to the west, Montgomery County, has a similar median population density to Prince George's County. However, the county's bus network is much better than Prince George's and the county seat, Rockville, is located in both the geographic and population center of the county.

Map of travel time to reach Rockville by 7:30am on weekdays. Created with OTP Analyst. Image by Chris Slatt.

Still, it was a bit surprising to discover that 90 percent of Montgomery County's population can reach the county courthouse in Rockville by 7:30 am on a weekday with a transit trip of ninety minutes or less. The densest parts of the county, including nearly all of those those inside the Beltway, can do so in seventy-five minutes or less, and even communities such as Damascus and Poolesville, which are on the edge of or surrounded by the county's Agricultural Reserve are able to reach Rockville by transit in ninety minutes or less.

Have you ever tried to reach Upper Malboro by transit? How did it go?

Top image: Map of travel time to reach Upper Marlboro by 7:30am on weekdays. Created with OTP Analyst. Image by Chris Slatt.

A few weeks ago we published Subway Sudoku, a challenging Metro-themed puzzle written by Adam Bressler and coded by Nick Keenan. If it's still got you stumped or you want validation, here are the answers. How did you do?

A. How many foreign countries can be found in the names of Metro stations? (The station is not necessarily named for the country.) Answer: 2

a. Gallery Place - Chinatown
b. Georgia Ave - Petworth

B. How many different US states are included in the names of Metro stations? (Postal abbreviations included) Answer: 5

In 2015, Fairfax County tentatively backed a plan that would drastically overhaul the Huntington Club condos next to the Huntington Metro station. Huntington Club, a local condo association, voted to dissolve itself last year to make way for the development. Last week, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an amendment to its comprehensive plan to allow higher density and floor area ratio, allowing the master developer to construct taller buildings and produce more homes.

According to the plan, the developer will tear down 364 condos and replace them with more than 1,500 condos and apartments, 65 townhomes, and retail and office space. The tallest buildings will top off at 200 feet and taper down to 55 feet.

This isn’t your typical redevelopment

In November last year, 87 percent of the Huntington Club condo association voted to dissolve themselves to make it easier to redevelop the land. It’s an unusual decision — the head of the condo association said it was the first time a condo community in Fairfax County had voted to tear down their own homes for redevelopment.

Huntington Club was originally built in 1967. When homeowners first thought about the future of their community, they had to decide whether to maintain their current buildings or go in a different direction. Being right next to a Metro station meant the Huntington Club land was valuable, and that there was a lot of opportunity for adding housing.

A view of the Huntington Club now. Image made with Google Maps.

Obviously, current homeowners stand to benefit monetarily from the redevelopment, but it’s still notable that they chose to look forward rather than preserve the past. The development won’t be complete for some time; construction will take at least 10 years. However if it goes forward as planned, it’ll show that redevelopment doesn’t have to displace current residents and can instead be used to benefit an entire neighborhood.

The Huntington Club's decision stands in interesting contrast to the region's many attempts to replace or rehab various public housing sites, like DC's New Communities Initiative. It has long been a goal of housing advocates to replace our most distressed public housing units in a way that benefits the current residents rather than displaces them from their homes. It will be interesting to follow the redevelopment of Huntington Club — a similar case of building replacement, but one where the current residents (as condo owners) have more economic power.

Good news for people who bike and take the train

This is an exciting development for Huntington for many reasons. Right now the area isn’t very pedestrian or cyclist-friendly. Adding more housing will provide the county with more incentive to improve the neighborhood for everyone — hopefully including more bike lanes and pedestrian amenities.

Huntington’s proximity to Old Town Alexandria, Amtrak, and the Beltway means it has a lot of potential to attract new residents from a variety of areas. This is particularly true for those who work in Old Town or at the National Science Foundation nearby in Eisenhower, or for people who need faster access to Maryland (Huntington is less than five miles from the Maryland border across the Wilson Bridge).

Of course, Metro is a huge factor. Huntington Club is right next to the Metro station, and despite diminished ridership over the last year across the system, it’s clear that people still want to live near transit. More development next to the station, especially mixed-use development, will encourage new residents to take transit.

This development is a jumping-off point

There is a missing middle housing problem in the region that isn’t just confined to DC. Huntington isn’t a neighborhood of very large homes — historically, it’s been a working class neighborhood that has benefitted from being close to transit. The neighborhood is a prime location for more density. The development proposed for Huntington Club may help solve the missing middle problem while helping give Southeast Fairfax County some more life.

Last year, Fairfax County broke ground on a new levee, which will help keep houses from flooding during heavy rain. This project is about 50 percent complete and when finished, will also provide running trails and give neighborhood residents a new way to get to the Metro or down Huntington Avenue.

Members of the Huntington Community Association pick up trash along Huntington Avenue. Image by Adam licensed under Creative Commons.

When I go running in Huntington on weekends, there are very few cars coming down the street — which would be fine, except I don’t see many pedestrians either. Right now, there’s really no place to go in Huntington. With this development and the upcoming one on Route 1, Huntington may become a place that new residents want to invest in, rather than just treat like a waypoint.

When new development does come it will inevitably bring more traffic and more people, but there will also be better sidewalks and a more walkable neighborhood. Hopefully there will even be a place to grab a cup of coffee without going into Old Town and more options for walking to get groceries. Perhaps then people will come to Huntington for reasons other than to take the Metro.

A bill recently introduced into the California legislature boldly proposes that every transit corridor in the state be rezoned to permit mid-rise apartments. In Slate, Henry Grabar writes that it's "just about the most radical attack on California’s [housing] affordability crisis you could imagine." In the Boston Globe, Dante Ramos writes "the bill may be the biggest environmental boon, the best job creator, and the greatest strike against inequality that anyone’s proposed in the United States in decades."

A similar approach would have a profound impact if it were applied to DC, where many areas near transit are restricted to very low densities by zoning.

In introducing California's Senate Bill 827, city-councilman-turned-state senator Scott Wiener calls it "a strong step toward denser housing near transit and a more sustainable development patterns." It would require that zoning rules along transit corridors "have no density maximums (such as single family home mandates), no parking minimums, and a minimum height limit of between 45 and 85 feet."

Wiener points out that the state has made huge investments in public services within these corridors — especially along heavy rail lines that cost billions of dollars to construct, operate, and maintain — and has a vested interest in allowing the maximum number of people to be able to benefit from those investments.

If the bill passes, mid-rise buildings like these in Oakland's Fruitvale neighborhood could be the norm, rather than the exception, along California transit lines. Image by the author.

The bill would affect much of California's urban and suburban areas

The current text of SB 827 (which, like all bills, is subject to change) would set height limits to a minimum of 55-85 feet closest to transit (within a quarter mile, or a five-minute walk, of service that runs every 15 minutes or better), and to heights of 45-55 feet in areas a bit further from transit (within half a mile of rail stations and other hubs). As in DC, building height limits would vary based on the width of the street.

SB 827 would affect large parts of the Bay Area. Image by Sasha Aickin used with permission.

The Policy Club, a Los Angeles-based group, has created a more detailed map which shows how the bill would change height, parking, and density standards within that city.

What impact would similar legislation have in DC?

As Ramos writes in the Boston Globe, "California's housing problems are like ours, but only more so. Population growth there has been far faster, and many of the land-use laws there are stricter. As a result, housing prices out there have spiraled much farther out of control.” Although he was writing about Boston, he’s also describing the housing situation throughout the Eastern Seaboard — including here in Greater Washington. (Luckily, DC has built about twice as many new housing units over the past few years than San Francisco, even though both DC and SF are each adding about 1,000 residents a month.)

This map, from the District Department of Transportation's benchmarking site, shows that relatively frequent transit reaches most of the District — particularly within the L'Enfant city, but also throughout outlying areas. The map highlights areas that meet the same transit access standard that SB 827 uses: within a five-minute walk of frequent local bus service, or a ten-minute walk of heavy rail. (Thanks to Ryan Westrom for pointing me to the map.)

In sharp contrast to the wide, mile-wide corridors shown on the transit access map, the District's zoning map shows much narrower strips (less than 1/10 mile wide) of multifamily zoning in most of Northwest and Northeast, limited only to land immediately fronting former radial streetcar routes like Connecticut and Rhode Island avenues.

All of the yellow areas on this map have zoning that's far more restrictive than what's envisioned for transit corridors under SB 827. The pale yellow areas on the zoning map are restricted to single-family detached houses, and the darker yellow areas are restricted to rowhouses below 35 feet tall.

Many of the recent battles over development in the District would have been avoided had a similar policy been in place here. The battle over "pop-ups" resulted in allowable heights in the rowhouse neighborhoods being lowered from 40 feet to 35 feet — rather than allowing Mount Pleasant-scale buildings. The Hine School development across from the Eastern Market Metro faced almost ten years of litigation, largely because of its height. Under SB 827's standards, it could have been built years ago, as it would have been allowed 85 feet of height as a matter of course.

Multiplying transit access, without raising taxes

In a follow-up article, Wiener writes that "Restricting transit-rich areas to low-density housing has several negative impacts. First, it significantly limits how many people can easily use transit and thus drive less. By severely limiting who can live near transit, we push people farther away, force them to drive, create crushing commutes, and reduce transit ridership, all of which undermine our transit investments."

Our region has an even more ambitious set of carbon pollution goals, and so must act even more quickly to ensure compliance. Both DC and Montgomery County have pledged to cut their carbon dioxide emissions even faster than California has (all the way to "net zero" by 2050), and that all of the region's counties have signed on to a regional plan that mirrors California's goal.

Other places have laws that override local zoning

Many other places allow higher authorities to overrule local zoning rules when they're found to be too restrictive, relative to higher-level plans or laws. These often take the form of special case-by-case legal appeal processes, rather than rewriting the rules as SB 827 proposes. (Granted, all states have zoning enabling legislation that sets standards for how municipalities can zone, but few set minimum standards for zoning.)

SB 827 echoes a recent proposal by Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, who has indicated that a forthcoming citywide plan update would flip existing planning priorities: the need for housing production would henceforth override "community character" when evaluating development proposals within transit corridors.

As with SB 827, the proposal would increase allowable building heights in many areas within half a mile of transit to four stories from two, and has attracted controversy. Robert Booth writes in The Guardian that "Conservatives at City Hall immediately accused him of 'declaring war on the suburbs' with a plan that would leave outer boroughs 'browner, overcrowded and harder to get around.'"

In London, as in DC, new growth is steered towards high-rise clusters like Battersea. Image by the author.

The Canadian province of Ontario is in the midst of overhauling its process where local land use decisions can be appealed to the province via a "local planning appeals tribunal." The former process frequently permitted proposals which had been rejected by local officials as being too dense.

Perhaps the best-known state law in the US that promotes housing production by overriding local zoning is Massachusetts' Chapter 40B. Under 40B, a development that includes affordable housing can circumvent some zoning rules. A recent bill before the Massachusetts assembly would, like SB 827, require all towns to zone some minimum area for multifamily zoning, but not very extensively. (In suburban Boston, some towns do not permit any new multifamily development.) Some others states' courts have required every town to zone for at least some multifamily or low-income housing.

Top image: SB 827 would make it possible to build small apartment buildings, like these in Mount Pleasant, across large areas that are currently restricted to single-family houses. Image by the author.

Just in time for this year’s elections, Montgomery County has a new LGBTQ political organization. Here’s why I’m hoping that the newly-formed Queer Democrats will look at access to housing and transportation.

I first came out in 2005. If you had told me then that today gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would be repealed, and Virginia would elect a trans woman to the state legislature, I’d have said you were dreaming. Even with the 2016 presidential election, queer people have made tremendous strides. However, these things don’t guarantee that queer people can make a life for themselves.

Writing in Slate, my friend and New York activist Andrea Bowen cited a study that trans people there are consistently poorer and face more food insecurity than their cisgender counterparts. “You can ban certain types of discrimination,” she writes, “but that doesn’t mean an oppressed population’s access to the things that make life good — say, food, income, or medical care — is actually going to improve.”

There are challenges that LGBTQ people face across the United States in finding work, finding economic stability, or finding a stable place to live:

When queer people do find jobs, they get paid less than their straight counterparts. Gay men earn 10 to 32 percent less than their straight counterparts, and are more likely to be penalized for not being discreet about it (such as announcing that they live with a same-sex partner). Ironically, the income gap is largest in high-paying, prestigious jobs, not unlike those you’d find here in the DC area.

As a result, queer people are more likely to face economic insecurity. It’s hard to keep a job when you don’t have a stable place to live (or vice versa). Twenty percent of LGBT people (and one-third of trans people) around the US live below the poverty level, compared to just 17 percent of single straight people. Over a quarter of queer people faced food insecurity in 2015.

This is something local governments can help solve

Economic insecurity isn’t an exclusively queer issue, but addressing it is an opportunity to make a huge difference in the lives of queer people. It’s also something that local governments are uniquely suited to tackle.

For instance, Montgomery County, like most local jurisdictions, is in charge of land use (aka where and how you can build housing) and transportation. Research shows that access to reliable, fast transportation is the leading indicator of getting ahead. For LGBTQ people who disproportionately face economic and social hardships, where you live and what jobs you can get to are crucial for your ability to live a good life.

For example, here’s a map of commute times in Montgomery County. Not surprisingly, commute times are shortest around Bethesda, the county’s largest job center, and higher basically everywhere else.

“That LGBT people face these higher rates of disadvantage means the national lack of affordable housing specifically harms LGBT individuals,” writes Brooke Williams from the Century Foundation in a report about housing for queer people.

That’s why the Century Foundation recommends getting rid of exclusionary zoning policies that basically outlaw affordable and middle-class housing in many neighborhoods, including much of Montgomery County. Building more transit, like the Purple Line and BRT, will also have a huge impact on economically disadvantaged queer people by giving them better access to jobs.

These protesters say there's a "war on suburbia."
Image by Sonya Burke used with permission.

The language that many opponents use echoes the arguments made against gay marriage in recent years: that their "way of life" is being attacked, that they'll be coerced to do things against their will, or that a person's desire to live differently than someone else is somehow invalid or fraudulent.

Take the claim that Montgomery County was waging “war on suburbia” by allowing the construction of apartments and townhouses in Bethesda's Westbard neighborhood, or that it would “destroy” the local culture and endanger the ability of people to raise children. Or the argument made by one neighbor in Silver Spring that plans to build a town center in White Oak was part of a plot to force people to quit their jobs and become a barista.

Ironically, some of these people may identify as progressives, support progressive causes, and may even support LGBTQ causes. Yet the impulse to keep change out of their backyard ultimately harms disadvantaged people. After all, people who can afford to drive will continue to drive for lack of other options, and people who can afford to pay top-dollar for a home won’t really be affected by a dearth of housing.

However, a lot of people will lose out in this situation, especially anyone with a history of facing prejudice or economic disadvantage. Like I said, this isn't an exclusively queer problem, but it's one that queer people and allies should pay attention to.

If you'd like to hear more, come see me speak at the newly-formed Queer Democrats of Montgomery County at their monthly meeting this Monday, January 29 at 7 pm in Kensington. For more information, visit their Facebook page.

Top image: A pride flag outside a suburban house (though not in Montgomery County). Image by mary licensed under Creative Commons.

Metro is one small step closer to regaining control over its safety oversight, after a fatal 2015 accident triggered the federal government to step in and take over. The Metro Safety Commission will include candidates from DC, Maryland, and Virginia, but the jurisdictions have dragged their feet on nominating members.

On January 4, DC’s picks for the safety commission firmed up when the Mayor’s office finally presented two names. The two new nominees will join the commission — when it’s finally set up — to oversee Metro and ensure the agency’s operations stay safe. Regional leaders will continue searching for an executive director for the body and also need to finish appointing its commissioners.

Robert Bobb and Chris Geldart were nominated by the DC Mayor’s office to be members on the MSC when the agency becomes law. The commission will take over from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) which has been temporarily overseeing Metro safety since October 2015. The FTA took over from the Tri-State Oversight Committee (TOC) in the fallout from the January 2015 incident in which a Yellow Line train filled with smoke outside L’Enfant and resulted in the death of a passenger.

The new safety commission will have powers that the TOC never had, including the ability to penalize the agency financially by withhold funding, or, in the worst cases, step in and suspend service in case of some sort of emergency. However, their primary tasks would be performing inspections and overseeing the agency to ensure operations and procedures are up to snuff.

Newly-appointed voting DC member Robert Bobb is currently President and CEO of The Robert Bobb Group, which provides “expertise to public sector entities on issues that include education reform, economic development strategy, community and neighborhood development, contract negotiation, municipal budgeting, and financial management.”

Before the Bobb Group, Bobb was appointed in March 2009 as Emergency Financial Manager to turn around the Detroit Public Schools system. He was previously elected President of the DC Board of Education in 2006, and served as City Administrator and Deputy Mayor under Mayor Anthony Williams. Williams currently serves as CEO/Executive Director of the Federal City Council, whose Deputy Executive Director serves on the GGWash Board of Directors.

Chris Geldart, the other appointed nominee, most recently served as Director of the DC Homeland Security Emergency Management Agency from 2012 to 2017. Before that he served as president of G2 Solutions, a consulting firm from Severna Park, Maryland, providing homeland security advice to local officials.

Bobb and Geldart join four others that have already been appointed to the MSC by both Virginia and Maryland, according to the Washington Post:

Greg Hull, former VP of American Public Transportation Association (APTA)

Mark Rosenker, former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member

Howard Roberts, former New York City Transit Authority (NYCT) president

Maryland has also appointed their alternate member, John Contestabile. The second DC voting member seat and Virginia’s alternate remain to be filled.

The work needed to fully establish the new safety commission continues. While the commission is still being set up and certified, the FTA continues to withhold funding from DC, Virginia, and Maryland as a penalty for not acting quickly enough. An FTA spokesperson told the Washington Post that the amount withheld is $15.8 million, up from $8.9 million in July.

Expanding Metro is always a hot topic, and most people know of the Silver Line — part which is under construction — or the proposed downtown loop. But do you know about the Rosslyn Y, the Brown Line, or the Beltway Loop?

These proposals were reviewed and analyzed in past Metro programs like Connecting Greater Washington and the Regional Transit System Plan. The studies looked at things like the impact on both rail and bus ridership, analysis of the areas served, and physical limitations of surrounding area. Based on the findings, recommendations were made to either kill the idea or incorporate it into other plans.

Here are some of those Metro ideas you may have missed:

1. The Rosslyn “Y”

What it is: The concept for this proposal was to create a bypass for the Rosslyn Station. In one version of the plan, the Silver Line would turn south after the Courthouse Metro Station and terminate at Ronald Reagan National Airport, providing a connection between Virginia’s two airports. The new bypass would have had an estimated 20,000 daily users.

Image by WMATA.

Why it didn't work out: Although this would significantly reduce passage transfers at the Rosslyn Station by 68 percent, there was no significant relief for other stations. The proposal was ultimately found to be infeasible due to the existing building foundations in its path.

What might happen instead: An alternate plan calls for a new Rosslyn station at a cost of $1 billion, which is incorporated in the downtown loop.

2. A second Green Line

What it is: This proposal would split the Green Line at Waterfront-SEU. The new section of the Green Line would provide a direct connection to the Pentagon and Dulles International Airport for residents of Southeast and Prince George’s County.

The second Green Line would significantly reduce passage transfers at two of the busiest stations, Rosslyn (a 90 percent reduction) and L’Enfant Plaza (a 32 percent reduction). There would also be moderate reductions in transfers at Metro Center and Gallery Place.

Image by WMATA.

Why it didn't work out: Drawbacks for this plan included worsening Orange Line crowding near Rosslyn, a reduction in Silver Line ridership, and only a one percent increase in users on the system. This proposal also utilized the Rosslyn Y concept, which as mentioned above, was infeasible.

What might happen instead: No plans yet.

3. Extending the Orange Line

What it is: Northern Virginia Transportation Authority’s long-range plan, TransAction 2040, includes extending the Orange Line 11 miles west of the current terminus at the Vienna Station. The $1.13 billion project would run along I-66, US-29, and US-50 into Centreville. Some officials have called for this extension to go even farther west into Gainesville and Haymarket in Prince William County.

Image by VRE.

Why it didn't work out: Currently, the VRE Manassas Line provides a service that runs near the proposed Orange Line extension. This proposal would lead to more overcrowding on the Orange Line and would have to be incorporated with other projects to lessen the burden on the Orange Line to be feasible.

What might happen instead: It could still happen! Despite these challenges, widening the I-66 median for the future Orange Line extension was listed as a recommended project for funds raised from I-66 tolls.

It’s worth noting that other extensions have previously been proposed as well. These include:

Red Line: Western extension from Shady Grove to Metropolitan Grove

Green Line: Northern extension from Greenbelt to BWI Airport

Orange Line: Eastern extension from New Carrollton to Bowie

Blue Line: Eastern extension from Largo to Bowie

Green Line: Southern extension from Branch Avenue to Waldorf or National Harbor

Yellow Line: Southern extension from Huntington to Lorton, via US 1

Blue Line: Southern extension from Franconia to Dale City

Silver Line: Western extension from Route 772 to Leesburg

Image by WMATA.

4. The Brown Line

What it is: This new 21-mile line would run from Friendship Heights west of the existing Red Line through Georgetown and the West End. It would create new stations south of the National Mall and the neighborhoods of Eckington, Bloomingdale, and Brightwood before rejoining the Redline in Silver Spring. The Brown Line would then continue north adding new stations in underserved areas of eastern Montgomery County.

Image by WMATA.

Why it didn't work out: The study found that the Brown Line would add 55,000 daily riders to Metro, but decrease bus ridership by 40,000 people. There was also minimal effect on relieving congested stations. The Brown Line would end up competing with the Red Line, which would run nearly parallel with it and has the advantage of more direct service to the employment centers in downtown DC.

What might happen instead: There was significant ridership at the Georgetown Station and the Union Station connection, but it was decided that these would be better rolled into the proposed downtown loop.

5. The Beltway Loop

What it is: One of the largest proposed projects involved creating a Metro line that runs along the Beltway. It involved creating 17 new stations and providing connections to 10 existing stations.

This proposal was estimated to bring an extra 25,000 riders per day to the Metro system and serve a total of 115,000 riders daily. It would also provide a connection between National Harbor and Metro. The heaviest ridership was focused on the Potomac crossings with an estimated 30,000 crossings on the Wilson Bridge and 21,000 over the American Legion Bridge.

Image by WMATA.

Why it didn't work out: The drawback to this plan was that the areas being served had relatively low densities for both households and jobs, making it infeasible. It was also found that the additional load would worsen peak crowding on the Yellow Line.

]]>Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:00:00 +0000Mike Grinnell (Contributor)Here’s how we can improve bus service east of the Anacostia Riverhttps://ggwash.org/view/65986/improving-bus-service-east-of-the-anacostia-river
https://ggwash.org/view/65986/improving-bus-service-east-of-the-anacostia-river

The physical and human geography in neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River are different than the rest of DC, which creates challenges for running a good bus network there. Making it better will require a more careful approach than a boilerplate public transit redesign.

The neighborhoods east of the Anacostia have some of the longest commute times in DC — at or above 35 minutes on average (compared with 29 minutes District-wide), and over 45 minutes for those who use public transportation. There is some Metrorail access, as the Green Line serves Anacostia and Congress Heights, and the Blue and Orange Lines serve neighborhoods north of Fort Circle Park. In between, however, residents must rely on bus transportation, which tends to be slower and, despite their lower fares, more costly to run.

The good news is that it is possible to improve public transportation east of the river by integrating buses and Metrorail better. While such integration would have positive citywide effects, it may also require a greater investment of public funds.

The area has unique geographic difficulties

The New York-based think tank TransitCenter recommends “straight and direct” routes, without deviations, and bus network consultant Jarrett Walker considers the grid to be the most useful bus layout. However, the physical geography of DC’s east-of-the-river neighborhoods do not easily support such bus routes.

Straight bus routes intersecting at right angles require the street network to be a grid. While much of the District does have a cohesive grid, allowing for straight corridors such as 14th and 16th Streets Northwest or H Street North, the neighborhoods east of the river do not. There are very few north-south and east-west streets in these neighborhoods, and those only form small, local grids, such as in Fairlawn and Northeast Boundary, rather than large-scale grids of arterial routes that could host buses. Minnesota Avenue runs diagonally from Anacostia northeast to Deanwood, and could form a basis for a network of intersecting routes — but deviations and turns on local streets are unavoidable.

Ultimately, the lack of a large-scale street grid east of the Anacostia River comes from the hilly terrain. Hills make the street grid more difficult, but also make it harder for passengers to walk to the bus stop. This forces transit agencies to have more closely spaced routes, which reduces the frequency each route could have on a fixed budget, and more closely spaced stops, which reduces average speed. Pruning weaker bus routes is less feasible in such an environment: elsewhere, WMATA could require passengers to walk a quarter mile further to a more frequent bus, but in Southeast DC, such a walk might involve going up and down a steep hill.

Consolidating routes would be easier if Metrorail were laid out at the intersections with the busiest arterial streets. Unfortunately, it is not. The most important street parallel to the river, Minnesota Avenue, connects the Green Line with the Orange Line, but misses the Blue Line. Major streets that cross the river inconsistently meet Metrorail stations west of the river: from Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, carrying South Capitol Street, to Benning Road Bridge, the only bridge that easily connects to Metrorail west of the river is the Sousa Bridge carrying Pennsylvania Avenue.

The impact of poverty

While some of the difficulties of designing a good transit system east of the river are purely about physical geography, it is impossible to ignore the fact that this area contains some of the poorest neighborhoods in the District. The three zip codes east of the river — 20019, 20020, 20032 — have median household incomes of $34,952, $33,196, and $33,832, respectively; the median income for the District as a whole is $72,935.

The poverty of these neighborhoods impacts planning in at least two distinct ways.

The first is that a current bus route or Metro station may see substantial usage even if service is poor, if there are no alternatives. In higher-income neighborhoods, transit agencies can use simple data analysis to learn which routes offer the best service, because those are likely to be the busiest; middle-income riders will most likely not use low-quality routes, but instead take taxis, use ride-hailing services like Uber, or buy cars. But in low-income communities, such analysis would reveal very little, forcing WMATA to understand quality of service using theoretical insight into best practices, combined with outreach within the community.

The second implication is that if there are separate systems with separate fares, low-income workers will ride the cheaper system. Metrobus charges a flat $2 per trip whereas Metrorail charges more, for example $2.60 peak and $2.25 off-peak between Anacostia and Farragut. Moreover, passengers who transfer between Metrobus and Metrorail must pay two fares, so a combined trip from Southeast DC to Farragut costs $4.10 peak and $3.75 off-peak.

When Metrorail first extended the Green Line to Anacostia, the plan was to reroute the buses to serve the new station. This led to community protests over the higher fares charged to passengers transferring between the buses and the trains. Today, it is best to reroute buses to connect to Metrorail, a faster service with lower provision costs; however, workers east of the river will keep riding the buses alone if that option is cheaper, and would be disproportionately impacted by any proposal involving a large fare increase.

Is fare integration the answer?

In DC, buses and Metro are on separate fare schedules: buses are cheaper, and there are no free transfers. This makes it difficult to have east-of-the-river buses feed Metrorail stations, as is common in cities with subway networks as strong as Washington’s, because people have an incentive to take the bus for the full length of their trip.

However, the best industry practice for running an effective transit network is fare integration. This means that a trip on public transit between two points should cost the same, regardless of whether it involves a one-seat bus ride, a connection between two buses, or a connection between a bus and Metrorail. Continental European cities almost universally have such a fare regime, even when it involves multiple different agencies. Many American cities such as New York, San Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles do as well, although they don’t incorporate their commuter rail networks. In those cities, planners can more easily reconfigure bus service to connect to the urban rail network; Seattle did, and as a result, its transit use and bus ridership have kept growing, even as its light rail (which opened in 2009) cannibalized some of its bus traffic.

Therefore, the best approach would be to bring Metrorail and bus fares in alignment. This could potentially raise costs for bus-only riders compared with what they are currently paying, but would make it easier for riders to take the fastest or more convenient option. It would also reduce operating costs: Metrorail is cheaper to operate than buses, and yet the fare system incentivizes taking the bus.

The most important thing to do is to make transfers free. At a minimum, WMATA should change the fare schedule on buses and trains so that passengers who transfer only pay the Metrorail fare, which is only moderately higher than the bus fare. But it would be better if the fares were exactly equal, as they are in so many other cities.

Fare alignment and equity

Fare integration is critical for the success of the public transit network, not just east of the river but in the entire region. But raising bus fares to match peak rail fares, potentially going up to $3 or even more between Anacostia and northern neighborhoods like Columbia Heights, would just make transportation less affordable to low-income Washingtonians, who are far more likely to be black or Hispanic. A small fare increase may be conscionable, if it brings sufficient improvements in service and ridership in low-income areas, but not a large one.

This implies that within parts of the District, Metrorail fares need to decrease. The decrease does not need to be large; going to $2.25 flat fare within a central zone, including Anacostia and Minnesota Avenue, would have limited negative impact on revenue. It might even decrease operating subsidy, if low-income users transition out of high-cost buses and onto lower-cost trains. The highest-ridership bus route in the region, the 70 series, is closely parallel to the Green and Yellow Lines, and if passengers switched to Metrorail then it would free up resources to be spent on buses elsewhere in the District.

The impact of fare integration would thus be felt in the entire District and even in some inner suburbs, and not just east of the river. Fare integration would facilitate rearranging some key bus routes to feed Metrorail. The cost is that it would involve changing the fare system in the inner parts of the region, from today’s granular distance-based fare to a zoned system, in which the fare within the District is flat. In the suburbs, the distance-based system need not change, as there are relatively few local buses that could provide two different fare systems. Fare integration would certainly enhance equity, and might also increase efficiency to the point of saving money.

Ultimately, however, serving poor communities effectively requires spending public money. Improvements in public transit serving low-income communities may not always “pay for themselves” in terms of system costs, even when employing best industry practices; a more equitable system may therefore require spending a substantial ongoing investment of public funds in increased operating subsidies.

Rearranging the network

If WMATA implements fare integration between Metrorail and buses, then it can reconfigure the bus network east of the river to feed the trains better. With no north-south or east-west grid streets, it would need to rely instead on routes parallel to and perpendicular to the river. The most important is Minnesota Avenue; potentially WMATA should consider opening an infill station on the Blue Line, similar in scope to NoMa-Gallaudet U on the Red Line, in order to make it easier to transfer from Minnesota Avenue buses to the trains.

Additional important corridors include Pennsylvania Avenue, with the only bridge over the Anacostia whose landing west of the river connects easily to Metrorail (at Potomac Avenue on the Blue, Orange, and Silver Lines); and Alabama Avenue, parallel to Minnesota Avenue, connecting Congress Heights with Benning Road along the route of the W4 bus today.

Today, because the fare system encourages low-income riders to take buses all the way from their homes to downtown DC, many buses east of the river divert to Pennsylvania Avenue. The only bus that goes along the entirety of Minnesota Avenue, the V2, comes every half hour off-peak. Instead, WMATA could be running a bus down Minnesota and rely on connections to Metrorail and to high-frequency buses on Pennsylvania Avenue. With less branching, fewer meanders, and less need to run buses across the river, there would be room for much higher frequency on each trunk. Minnesota Avenue could get a bus every ten minutes off-peak, maybe even every eight minutes.

Despite physical challenges, the area isn't doomed to bad transit

Public transit east of the Anacostia River has unique challenges: difficult physical geography, Metrorail stations that are not placed for optimal bus connections, and very low incomes among riders. But it is possible to overcome these challenges; the area is not doomed to circuitous bus routes.

The central piece to improving the area’s public transportation is fare integration between buses and trains, through very small increases in bus fares and free transfers. With fare integration, passengers are likely to switch from buses to Metrorail, which has lower cost of service provision, which would allow pruning some bus branches. This has the potential to stimulate sufficient additional ridership that despite the decrease in fare collection, the overall public subsidy required may yet go down.

However, it is not guaranteed that a moderate fare change would be a net money-saver. Good public service for low-income residents is steeped with subsidies, everywhere: for health care, education, roads, housing, and transit. Adopting best industry practices may require an increase in public spending, but this investment would be worth it given the positive impact on connectivity to the rest of the city.

This article is part of the DC Policy Center's ongoing research to generate data and analyses on the District of Columbia's economy and demography.